94 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I thought I'd get so many different options, but most dialogue choices and personality flavors within were pretty much the same as in Inquisition (diplomatic/good, quirky/witty/sarcastic and decisive/aggressive/to the point). Matters of role in the story and its details aside, I've felt no more liberated and no less restricted by their station and story in DAO than I did in DAI.

True. All moving to a voiced character changed was that the dialogue structure that Bio's always used became obvious to everybody.

[Realmzmaster]

To be honest I'll never understand complains about Inquisitor's lack of personality... especially after I've played DAO. I thought I'd notice some major differences, but he more I played, the more I realized that tales of more developed HoF personality are a matters of legends and "rose-tinted-glasseitis" rather than actual case.

I thought I'd get so many different options, but most dialogue choices and personality flavors within were pretty much the same as in Inquisition (diplomatic/good, quirky/witty/sarcastic and decisive/aggressive/to the point). Matters of role in the story and its details aside, I've felt no more liberated and no less restricted by their station and story in DAO than I did in DAI.

 

You are correct. The difference is that with a silent protagonist gamers could imagine the way it was being said in their headcanon. The actual lines that could be  selected in DAO was the same pattern used in DA2 and DAI. If you read the lines the warden could say they followed diplomatic, sarcastic and aggressive.

 

The voiced protagonist speaks the lines as intended which means they cannot be interpreted in a different way in gamer's headcanon. Gamers in their headcanon read into the lines, but you can tell by the reaction of the NPC or party member what the writers intended. Whether you are in agreement with the writer's intent is another matter.

[cJohnOne]

I thought DAO was great.  You had party banter and the funny chantry sisters in denerim.  I liked the combat equally in DA2 and DAO.  I really enjoyed the combat.

[Nefla]

That bridge puzzle in the Sacred Ashes quest was severely dumbed down on the console version. It was way harder on the PC version.

 

Dumbing down for consoles is a thing.

That's nice, but clearly consoles are not to blame for the restricted combat since console players had access to all abilities, were able to switch weapon sets, set detailed companion tactics, etc...before DA:I. Saying "those things are missing because consoles!" makes no sense considering console versions had that stuff before. I think it's ridiculous when people decide that every shortcoming of a game is based on the existence of consoles. Restricted combat? Consoles! All hairstyles have sideburns and bald patches? Consoles! Fewer personality options? Consoles! Poorly written story? Consoles! Etc...

[midnight tea]

That's nice, but clearly consoles are not to blame for the restricted combat since console players had access to all abilities, were able to switch weapon sets, set detailed companion tactics, etc...before DA:I. Saying "those things are missing because consoles!" makes no sense considering console versions had that stuff before. I think it's ridiculous when people decide that every shortcoming of a game is based on the existence of consoles. Restricted combat? Consoles! All hairstyles have sideburns and bald patches? Consoles! Fewer personality options? Consoles! Poorly written story? Consoles! Etc...

 

Well... yeah, sure, but in case, of say: DAI, we know that a lot of things were cut down because old gen consoles wouldn't be able to handle them. Consoles will never be able to catch up with even mid-range PCs - even current gen consoles are already getting kiiiinda old, which limits the possibilities of implementing not just higher level graphics, but also more sophisticated AIs, animations, or gaming mechanics.

 

After all, the game may even appear to be "poorly written" if the console it runs on is unable to generate, say, a good scene with enough NPCs to make it look grand, or enough enemies with sophisticated AI (which requires computing power after all) in order for character to feel threatened. Some of these issues can be covered by smart game design and writing - but not all.

 

It's just how it is - there will always have to be compromises. Which doesn't necessarily means that those compromises are always detrimental - that people are able to afford a console and a copy of a game is certainly beneficial, for gamers and game developers (we get the game, they get to make it), which may or may not have happened if the game was only available on mid to high-end PC (though crowdfunding is certainly shaking things up now)... But those compromises exist nonetheless.

[Nefla]

Well... yeah, sure, but in case, of say: DAI, we know that a lot of things were cut down because old gen consoles wouldn't be able to handle them. Consoles will never be able to catch up with even mid-range PCs - even current gen consoles are already getting kiiiinda old, which limits the possibilities of implementing not just higher level graphics, but also more sophisticated AIs, animations, or gaming mechanics.

 

After all, the game may even appear to be "poorly written" if the console it runs on is unable to generate, say, a good scene with enough NPCs to make it look grand, or enough enemies with sophisticated AI (which requires computing power after all) in order for character to feel threatened. Some of these issues can be covered by smart game design and writing - but not all.

 

It's just how it is - there will always have to be compromises. Which doesn't necessarily means that those compromises are always detrimental - that people are able to afford a console and a copy of a game is certainly beneficial, for gamers and game developers (we get the game, they get to make it), which may or may not have happened if the game was only available on mid to high-end PC (though crowdfunding is certainly shaking things up now)... But those compromises exist nonetheless.

What aspect of consoles would limit your ability to change your weapon set in combat or restrict you to 8 abilities in combat? (I don't see how mechanics that worked in older games on older consoles are suddenly "sophisticated" either) A scene doesn't need to have a ton of NPCs to make for a good story (I loved the story of Telltale games such as TWD and The Wolf Among Us) and what technical limitation would possibly lead to a neutral personality that is not allowed to be extreme/evil/racist/selfish/fanatical/whatever? You still get the same number of dialogue options as in SWtOR, DA2, or Mass Effect and those games DO allow for a more varied personality. I feel like the combat was "streamlined" to make it more appealing to casual players who aren't used to RPGs and would be initially confused at too many options. I also don't think the story was lacking because of technical limitations or the inability to have an army scene or what have you but because they chose to make the story that way.

[midnight tea]

What aspect of consoles would limit your ability to change your weapon set in combat or restrict you to 8 abilities in combat?

 

I'm not a game dev, but it's not hard to notice what might have influenced their decisions. There are a lot of background computations and calculations that computers have to do, especially during combat that is so unpredictable. Even increasing or decreasing the framerate from 30 to 60 may mean that the devs would have to cut significantly on, say, graphic fidelity and AI sophistication, as explained far more eloquently and expertly by folks from Extra Credits in this video:

Spoiler

 

... if a framerate can affect the games on pretty profound levels, so do devices on which the games are designed.

 

Then there's the fact that the combat in DAI is different than in DAO - it's faster and more intuitive. Personally I prefer it that way - all the games I've played prior to DAI (games like Dragon's Dogma, ESO, Kingdoms Of Amalur - all RPGs) had a much faster, smoother combat that had a much better and satisfying flow than what I consider to be fairly anemic combat in DAO. No big, fun explosions can compensate the fact that the combat felt slow and stilted.

 

Most of them also had restricted amount of abilities I can use - KOA was far less restricted, but it also wasn't a party-based game. And Dragons Dogma is an absolute blast with only six active abilities. And while I don't necessarily laud restricted abilities in combat or wouldn't mind a slot or two, I can't help but liking strategic decisions as to what lands on my ability bar and which combo is most effective instead of having it clogged by abilities I oftentimes don't even use that much and have to spend a long time on pause in order to even find it.

 

 

 

A scene doesn't need to have a ton of NPCs to make for a good story (I loved the story of Telltale games such as TWD and The Wolf Among Us) and what technical limitation would possibly lead to a neutral personality that is not allowed to be extreme/evil/racist/selfish/fanatical/whatever? 

 

I was providing an example (btw. both your examples are not really relevant to current discussion, because neither TWD or The Wolf Among Us are anywhere close to being big western RPGs with customizable heroes, nor are telling stories like theirs).

 

And come on - we both know that that there are SEVERE technical and financial limitations to making the game so big as to provide players with more pronounced personalities or choices. What console would run or even accommodate a game that would necessarily probably destroy their hard disk's capacity? The cutscenes, branching choices and voice files don't weight nothing you know.

 

Besides - Bioware has already experimented with more pronounced personalities with DA2. Turned out most people preferred less pronounced DAO ways, so they've returned to it (and personally I don't see a difference between DAO and DAI in terms of expressing one's personality, not under close examination)

 

 

 

You still get the same number of dialogue options as in SWtOR, DA2, or Mass Effect and those games DO allow for a more varied personality.

 

If I recall correctly quite a lot of people have complained that the restricted, but more pronounced dialogue options in those games basically forced them into playing two or three distinct set personalities there are, and if they chose to mix stuff up, most of the times their character came across as unhinged. Which I agree with - I prefer when I can mix and match between choices more - the effect is more subtle, but also more nuanced. I can be a hardass with a heart of gold underneath, or a devout Andrastian who sometimes can't contain their hedonistic, murderous streak, instead of just Paragon or Renegade.

[Scarlett]

Sometimes a game just isn't for you. You may want to consider abandoning this one.

As for the time, the How Long To Beat average was 44 hours for a "Main" run. My guess would be that I could do it in 35 or so, with companion quests and so forth; Power is pretty easy to come by if you hit the obvious and fast sources like closing any rift you bump into.

 

Yes, maybe the game isn't for me, I agree.

The thing is I've played DAO (that I didn't like that much) and DA2 (that I like a lot more than DAO) so I know I will finish DAI too, because I want to judge the whole game and not only the 10 first hours. Maybe I will like it a bit more. But to me something is missing on the whole DA games. Or maybe it's a just a question of taste, I really don't know. I remember Mass Effect 1, the game just ate my soul the moment I started to play and I was so-so-so-so passionate during the 3 games. I wish I had the same wonderful feelings with the DA serie but it's not the case... it's maybe why I'm that disappointed. I really wanted to love those games as much as ME... well one thing for sure, I love Space-Opera much more than fantasy so ...

Thanks for your answer

 

 

To be honest I'll never understand complains about Inquisitor's lack of personality... especially after I've played DAO. I thought I'd notice some major differences, but he more I played, the more I realized that tales of more developed HoF personality are a matters of legends and "rose-tinted-glasseitis" rather than actual case.

I thought I'd get so many different options, but most dialogue choices and personality flavors within were pretty much the same as in Inquisition (diplomatic/good, quirky/witty/sarcastic and decisive/aggressive/to the point). Matters of role in the story and its details aside, I've felt no more liberated and no less restricted by their station and story in DAO than I did in DAI.

 

I don't know, I can't explain it, I have a weird feeling with my character, I think I maybe need to play more. One thing for sure, doing too many side quests on a long period without talking with my team at Darse intensify that weird feeling.

 

Another thing I've noticed yesterday when I was talking with Cassandra : the lack of staging when my character talk with people. I had a little nice exchange with her at first (close range discussion where you see the characters faces and expressions as usual) and then, when you start asking questions about her past, life, whatever, the action totally change : it's just 2 little characters lost in the middle of a background, standing straight, who are talking together. The view never change, you don't see their faces, expressions, nothing, sometimes you have "approval" or "disapproval" on the left of the screen and that's pretty all. I've talked with everybody around, pretty much the same, a little normal close range conversation with staging at first and then for the rest of the (long) list of questions, nothing. I like to talk with people and to actually see them close enough,  like a real conversation.

It was all fine on DAO because, even if I don't hear my character talking, I see everything from her point of view (close range discussion all the time). Same for DA2 and ME.

So the discussions seem... "cold" (?) between my character and the rest of the team ... I'm not sure "cold" is the good word but I fell a distance.

This can also be a part of the problem I have with that weird impression my character lack of personality.

 

Well again, I need to play more to see the rest of the game.

 

Edit : I need to add something : the dub is not that great too... it doesn't help (playing in french)

[Zikade]

Yes, I do think the combat has been really dumped down. I pretty much always play on Hard (except on my Nightmare runs) and it just seems like I can manage everything by just spamming the same stuff. I never even switch between my party members whereas in DAO and DA2 I was actively controlling the battle and managing their tactics. Only exception are pretty much the Dragon fights since the dumb AI doesn't know how to keep their distance and so I have to guide the more squishy characters away. 

The 8 ability slot limit doesn't help at all since it just limits your gameplay and doesn't add to it. 

 

At least the Trials have added some excitement. Especially the Walk Softly one which gives enemies some more abilities and resistances.

 

I also agree about the collectibles. Side quests in general is one of my pet peeves in Inquisition. There's a ****-ton of non-engaging fetch quests and collectibles which I really don't give a damn about since there's no interesting NPCs, stories, choices... anything... about them. They have such beautiful large environments but there's hardly anything worth doing in them. IMO at least. It's like they over-corrected the lack of exploration and different maps from DA2 but ended up making it like a single player MMO instead.

[AlanC9]

Yes, I do think the combat has been really dumped down. I pretty much always play on Hard (except on my Nightmare runs) and it just seems like I can manage everything by just spamming the same stuff. I never even switch between my party members whereas in DAO and DA2 I was actively controlling the battle and managing their tactics.

That's how I played DA:O and DA2 too.

[AlanC9]

Yes, maybe the game isn't for me, I agree.

The thing is I've played DAO (that I didn't like that much) and DA2 (that I like a lot more than DAO) so I know I will finish DAI too, because I want to judge the whole game and not only the 10 first hours. Maybe I will like it a bit more. But to me something is missing on the whole DA games.

Well, since you're going on with it, a few bits of advice.

Stay on a lower difficulty level and don't worry too much about crafting. If you trip across an outcropping of metal, pick it up, but don't go out of your way for stuff.

Hit any rift you see unless you don't have the levels to beat the demons there. It's fast Power. Requisitions are often free, too, since a lot of the time they'll ask for stuff you'll accumulate from just walking around and being attacked.

You can skip opening a lot of areas. You'll be forced to open up Crestwood and the Western Approach as part of the main plot, and you'll need to open the Storm Coast if you want to recruit the Iron Bull. Anything else can be skipped. However, you might find it more interesting to open a new area and do its main quest line than to do more sidequests in the areas you've opened.

Astrariums and shards do pay off, but I think you're better off skipping them. Maybe do astrariums if you run into a couple of them while doing other things

 

Another thing I've noticed yesterday when I was talking with Cassandra : the lack of staging when my character talk with people.

Probably copied from those ME3 shipboard non-interactive conversations. Not as good a fit with DAI since the standard camera mode is so much more distant.

Edit : I need to add something : the dub is not that great too... it doesn't help (playing in french)

If your spoken English is as good as your written, you could DL the English language pack.

[KaiserShep]

I wouldn't want to get rid of the astrariums. I really like them. I only wish that there was something at the end, like some sort of ancient Tevinter celestial map or something.

[AlanC9]

I like them too, but the payoff comes from solving every one in a zone, which generally requires going all over the map. I don't think that's a good fit for Scarlett-Aimpyh's playstyle.

[Scarlett]

Probably copied from those ME3 shipboard non-interactive conversations. Not as good a fit with DAI since the standard camera mode is so much more distant.
 

 

Here, I disagree : as you wrote, the conversation on ME3 which are non close range are non-interactive. It's fine because you mainly have nothing to reply (or rarely, when you just need to support one of the 2 people who argue on a subject). In that case, you just have to listen conversations if you want (or not, it's up to you), and it's very funny sometimes (jokes between Garrus and Joker... omg)~

On the contrary, during DAI, you have very long and interactive discussions built around that concept and this is why I'm totally surprised they skipped the staging here. I hope they won't do that on MEA ....

 

Iron Bull : already found him at least a character I truly like (I also like Varric and Cassandra to be honest) ! I like warriors (all my characters are knights or warriors on every game I play), so having members like him on my team with brutal strength is always my priority and my guilty pleasure XD 

 

Astrarium : guess what ? it's one of the few things I like on the side quests, what can I say, stars, I'm not a space lover for nothing ^^

 

also for the dub, not everything is bad but the main character, really, her voice bother me... I will try the english pack, thanks for the tips

[Rawgrim]

Which means that there were more paying customers on the consoles than the PC. So which audience should developers be more concerned with or cater to? I usually would go with the audience that is not ripping off the product.

 

Depends. How many PC versions were sold vs how many console versions were sold? Despite piracy, the PC gamers might have still bought more copies than the console gamers.

[Rawgrim]

That's nice, but clearly consoles are not to blame for the restricted combat since console players had access to all abilities, were able to switch weapon sets, set detailed companion tactics, etc...before DA:I. Saying "those things are missing because consoles!" makes no sense considering console versions had that stuff before. I think it's ridiculous when people decide that every shortcoming of a game is based on the existence of consoles. Restricted combat? Consoles! All hairstyles have sideburns and bald patches? Consoles! Fewer personality options? Consoles! Poorly written story? Consoles! Etc...

 

In this case the puzzle had been changed for the console version, so...yeah. This was actually because of consoles. PC version had a difficult puzzle, the console version had a severely simplified version of the puzzle.

 

This has nothing to do with combat or anything else. Stop putting words into people's mouths when you are trying to argue a point. It doesn't work.

[Rawgrim]

What aspect of consoles would limit your ability to change your weapon set in combat or restrict you to 8 abilities in combat? (I don't see how mechanics that worked in older games on older consoles are suddenly "sophisticated" either) A scene doesn't need to have a ton of NPCs to make for a good story (I loved the story of Telltale games such as TWD and The Wolf Among Us) and what technical limitation would possibly lead to a neutral personality that is not allowed to be extreme/evil/racist/selfish/fanatical/whatever? You still get the same number of dialogue options as in SWtOR, DA2, or Mass Effect and those games DO allow for a more varied personality. I feel like the combat was "streamlined" to make it more appealing to casual players who aren't used to RPGs and would be initially confused at too many options. I also don't think the story was lacking because of technical limitations or the inability to have an army scene or what have you but because they chose to make the story that way.

 

The controller was the reason for the limit. To have access to everything at an immediate press of a button. No waiting etc. Hence why the radial menu got removed.

 

Less options = less sophisticated. No real reason to plan anything. Just button mash. Its like Street Fighter vs Chess, really.

[Realmzmaster]

In this case the puzzle had been changed for the console version, so...yeah. This was actually because of consoles. PC version had a difficult puzzle, the console version had a severely simplified version of the puzzle.

 

This has nothing to do with combat or anything else. Stop putting words into people's mouths when you are trying to argue a point. It doesn't work.

 

The problem is (as Nefla points out) is that some posters are trying to blame the consoles for every real or imagined deficiency. Not all the decisions made had to do with the consoles. The 8-slot limit, specializations, skill trees as examples.

 

I will fault Bioware/EA for releasing DAI on the 360 and PS3 because that clearly required cutting on those machines. (The Xbox one and PS4 are clearly more powerful machines and on par with some PC rigs). That begins as a business decision. In that case the business decision drove the design instead of the other way around.

 

I also understand the reason for that business decision. I do not agree with it, but it was a way of maximizing revenue and reaching the greatest audience. The PS4 and Xbox one had no problem handling Descent or Trespasser. 

 

So I cannot agree that consoles are to blame for every deficiency as some posters like to point out.

[AlanC9]

Depends. How many PC versions were sold vs how many console versions were sold? Despite piracy, the PC gamers might have still bought more copies than the console gamers.

I'm not aware of Bio saying anything about DA in particular, but IIRC consoles are very much in the majority for ME. Something like two-thirds of players.

[Nefla]

The controller was the reason for the limit. To have access to everything at an immediate press of a button. No waiting etc. Hence why the radial menu got removed.

 

Less options = less sophisticated. No real reason to plan anything. Just button mash. Its like Street Fighter vs Chess, really.

No one cared about having to "wait" to select your abilities (and BioWare itself really hyped up the tactical camera on console as well) and the people that didn't want to select from all their abilities could still set the 8 abilities on to the hotkeys and not have to plan. The radial menu was available and worked just fine for consoles with controllers in the past, there was no reason to take it out. Even if every console player was a knuckle dragging simpleton with the attention span of a flea and would rage at the optional inclusion of the radial menu, PC and consoles have always had separate control schemes. There would be no reason to force the same system on both. I also doubt BioWare has as low an opinion of console players as you do.